Critical Review Of Too Many People? By Ian Angus And Simon Butler

Critical review of Too May People By Ian Angus and Simon Butler

In the book, Too Many People: Population, Immigration and Ecological Crisis, Authors Ian Angus and Simon Butler present a compelling case against the theory that “too many people” or more accurately, “too many consumers” are the primary causes for environmental destruction. The authors argue that this theory is not only wrong butalso dangerous as it shifts potential efforts from solving the ecological crisis by focusing on a problem that in reality does not exist. Although the primary purpose of the book is to dismantle arguments from “populationists” who advocate for the adoption of population control measures to stop environmental damage, the book is particularly persuasive as it takes the care to address and refute allcommon theories or beliefs for the causes of environmental degradation in an attempt to redirect momentum of environmentalists from he real cause: the destructive nature of the capitalist system with its emphasis on accumulation and never-ending growth. Throughout the book, the authors carefully construct their arguments and provide overwhelming evidence to support their claims that makelegitimate rebuttals difficult to envision.

To counter the claim that overpopulation is the primary cause of environmental problems, the authors begin by tracing the origins of the debate. They detail that although the idea that overpopulation is causing environmental damage has existed in environmental circles for quite some time but came to the forefront of public awareness in the publication ofthe 1966 book” The Population Bomb by Paul and Ann Ehrlic. The book warned of a mass starvation that would take place in the 1970s and 80’s caused by overpopulation and an inability to produce enough food if drastic measures were not adopted immediately. The book predicted that a mass starvation caused by overpopulation would take place in the 1970’s and 80’s and food production would not keeppace with demand if drastic measures were not immediately adopted. At first glance, Angus and Butler appear to be commending the Ulrich’s by stating that, “unlike most populationists, they didn’t just target population growth in poor countries, pointing out that poor capital resource use in the United States was vastly higher than in other countries”(Page 11). However, they subsequently bringattention to the hypocrisy that will appear to be a theme for populationists throughout the remainder of the book by detailing the different population control methods the Ulrich’s prescribe for poor and rich countries. For example, the Ulrich proposed solution for was for the United States to introduce tax penalties for large families, better sex education, access to birth control and abortion whilefor Third World countries they suggested forced sterilization and ending of food shipments from western countries.
The fact that the Ulrich’s are capable of acknowledging that their own country is not only part of the problem, but one of the biggest contributors to the environmental crisis and yet be unable, or unwilling to recommend at the very least a universal solution for all of humanityquestions the ethical and moral ambiguity of the populationist narrative that consistently frames the argument as an “us-vs-them” by differentiating treatment for one group over another based on nothing other than being a member of one group. As Angus and Butler further elaborate in their discussion in other parts of the book this type of narrative is common in most populationists literature.
Oneof the primary criticisms that Angus and Butler have towards populationist rhetoric is their use, or rather misuse, of numbers and statistics to explain the relationship between population and environmental damage. They explain that although it is correct that as global population has grown there has also been corresponding rise in environmental damage but they point out that this does not mean...